Jeremy C. Reed [Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:28:20AM -0700]:
> I'd suggest that we do not go out of our way to patch packages to
> install to ${PREFIX}/doc/html.
>
> Have a look on your own systems (or PLISTs) to see many html files not in
> /usr/pkg/share/doc/html. It is confusing.
I've did that. Over 20,000 html files in share/, only 3,000 html files in
share/doc/html. Maybe that I have some of my wip/ packages installed, which
don't use doc/html, just doc/ ;)
Anyway, in share/, but outside share/doc, HTML documentation was found in:
opera/help/
-- well, I guess, that Opera has this directory hardcoded
mplayer/DOCS/
-- definetley should go to doc/
httpd/htdocs/manual
-- see above, anyway it seems common to serve http manual
by default (perhaps that was some kind of a demo
function, now it could be patched & disabled)
xfce4/doc
-- seems a share/doc hierarchy violation (except that it is
undocumented in hier(7))...
I don't think this is much for a system with about 300 packages.
I also don't understand, why would you want to put the above files to
doc/html/, and not just to doc/. If you really, really want to separate html
and non-html docs, it would be better to use share/doc/${PKGBASE}/html, and
not share/doc/html/${PKGBASE}.
First you think about the package name, not about doc format.
Using share/doc/${PKGBASE}/ is pretty logical ("I want to read _docs_ for
postgresql, I go to doc/postgresql").
Using share/doc/html/${PKGBASE}/ is pretty illogical IMHO ("I want to read
any HTML file so I go to doc/html/, what do we have here, oh well, it can be
postgresql today, why not")
Using both share/doc/package and share/doc/html/package is IMVHO a design
mistake.